Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2141	control, N = 1061	treatment, N = 1081	p-value2
age	212	51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75)	50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75)	51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73)	0.413
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	214				0.557
f		173 (81%)	84 (79%)	89 (82%)
m		41 (19%)	22 (21%)	19 (18%)
occupation	214				0.847
day_training		5 (2.3%)	2 (1.9%)	3 (2.8%)
full_time		24 (11%)	12 (11%)	12 (11%)
homemaker		30 (14%)	14 (13%)	16 (15%)
other		2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.9%)
part_time		40 (19%)	22 (21%)	18 (17%)
retired		51 (24%)	23 (22%)	28 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.7%)	4 (3.8%)	4 (3.7%)
shelter		1 (0.5%)	1 (0.9%)	0 (0%)
student		2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.9%)
t_and_e		3 (1.4%)	2 (1.9%)	1 (0.9%)
unemploy		48 (22%)	26 (25%)	22 (20%)
marital	214				0.981
cohabitation		1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.9%)
divore		24 (11%)	13 (12%)	11 (10%)
in_relationship		4 (1.9%)	2 (1.9%)	2 (1.9%)
married		68 (32%)	32 (30%)	36 (33%)
none		99 (46%)	50 (47%)	49 (45%)
seperation		3 (1.4%)	2 (1.9%)	1 (0.9%)
widow		15 (7.0%)	7 (6.6%)	8 (7.4%)
edu	214				0.538
bachelor		47 (22%)	20 (19%)	27 (25%)
diploma		37 (17%)	23 (22%)	14 (13%)
hd_ad		5 (2.3%)	4 (3.8%)	1 (0.9%)
postgraduate		15 (7.0%)	8 (7.5%)	7 (6.5%)
primary		18 (8.4%)	8 (7.5%)	10 (9.3%)
secondary_1_3		25 (12%)	13 (12%)	12 (11%)
secondary_4_5		57 (27%)	26 (25%)	31 (29%)
secondary_6_7		10 (4.7%)	4 (3.8%)	6 (5.6%)
fam_income	214				0.851
10001_12000		7 (3.3%)	2 (1.9%)	5 (4.6%)
12001_14000		11 (5.1%)	4 (3.8%)	7 (6.5%)
14001_16000		10 (4.7%)	4 (3.8%)	6 (5.6%)
16001_18000		5 (2.3%)	3 (2.8%)	2 (1.9%)
18001_20000		10 (4.7%)	7 (6.6%)	3 (2.8%)
20001_above		37 (17%)	21 (20%)	16 (15%)
2001_4000		32 (15%)	15 (14%)	17 (16%)
4001_6000		27 (13%)	12 (11%)	15 (14%)
6001_8000		20 (9.3%)	11 (10%)	9 (8.3%)
8001_10000		17 (7.9%)	9 (8.5%)	8 (7.4%)
below_2000		38 (18%)	18 (17%)	20 (19%)
medication	214	191 (89%)	94 (89%)	97 (90%)	0.789
onset_duration	212	15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63)	15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56)	15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63)	0.709
Unknown		2	0	2
onset_age	210	35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72)	35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67)	36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72)	0.517
Unknown		4	2	2
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2141	control, N = 1061	treatment, N = 1081	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	214	3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.968
recovery_stage_b	214	17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24)	18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)	17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)	0.486
ras_confidence	214	29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45)	29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42)	29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45)	0.593
ras_willingness	214	11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15)	11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)	11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)	0.839
ras_goal	214	17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25)	17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)	17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.472
ras_reliance	214	13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)	13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20)	0.438
ras_domination	214	9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)	10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)	9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)	0.204
symptom	214	30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56)	30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55)	30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56)	0.997
slof_work	214	22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30)	22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30)	22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30)	0.695
slof_relationship	214	25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35)	24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)	25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35)	0.206
satisfaction	214	20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35)	19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34)	20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)	0.163
mhc_emotional	214	10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)	10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	0.694
mhc_social	214	15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30)	14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30)	15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30)	0.567
mhc_psychological	214	21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36)	21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36)	0.628
resilisnce	214	16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30)	16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)	17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30)	0.084
social_provision	214	13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)	13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20)	13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)	0.051
els_value_living	214	16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25)	16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24)	17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)	0.451
els_life_fulfill	214	12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)	12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)	13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)	0.140
els	214	29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44)	30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45)	0.219
social_connect	214	26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)	26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48)	26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)	0.608
shs_agency	214	14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24)	13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23)	14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24)	0.092
shs_pathway	214	15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24)	15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.101
shs	214	30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48)	29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46)	31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48)	0.082
esteem	214	12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20)	12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)	12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20)	0.712
mlq_search	214	14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)	14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21)	15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)	0.161
mlq_presence	214	13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21)	13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)	13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21)	0.643
mlq	214	28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42)	27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40)	28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42)	0.322
empower	214	19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30)	18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30)	19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30)	0.272
ismi_resistance	214	14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20)	14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20)	14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)	0.986
ismi_discrimation	214	11.71 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)	11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)	11.57 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)	0.524
sss_affective	214	10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.715
sss_behavior	214	9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.648
sss_cognitive	214	8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)	8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	0.587
sss	214	28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)	28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)	28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)	0.873
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.13	0.119	2.90, 3.36
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.167	-0.328, 0.327	0.998
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.130	0.157	-0.179, 0.439	0.410
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.173	0.231	-0.280, 0.625	0.456
	Pseudo R square	0.008
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.0	0.283	17.5, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.257	0.399	-1.04, 0.525	0.520
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.272	0.307	-0.874, 0.329	0.377
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.833	0.452	-0.053, 1.72	0.067
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.6	0.534	28.5, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.389	0.753	-1.09, 1.86	0.606
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.629	0.493	-0.338, 1.60	0.205
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.54	0.727	0.120, 2.97	0.036
	Pseudo R square	0.024
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.201	11.3, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.043	0.284	-0.600, 0.514	0.879
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.068	0.212	-0.348, 0.484	0.749
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.467	0.312	-0.144, 1.08	0.137
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.319	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.332	0.450	-0.549, 1.21	0.461
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.231	0.314	-0.384, 0.846	0.462
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.820	0.462	-0.085, 1.73	0.078
	Pseudo R square	0.019
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.284	12.5, 13.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.315	0.400	-0.469, 1.10	0.431
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.395	0.272	-0.138, 0.929	0.149
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.456	0.401	-0.330, 1.24	0.258
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.0	0.234	9.55, 10.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.413	0.330	-1.06, 0.233	0.211
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.039	0.266	-0.560, 0.482	0.883
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.06	0.391	0.289, 1.82	0.008
	Pseudo R square	0.019
symptom	(Intercept)	30.3	0.897	28.5, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.103	1.265	-2.58, 2.38	0.935
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.25	0.713	-2.65, 0.150	0.083
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.45	1.052	-3.51, 0.612	0.170
	Pseudo R square	0.012
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.3	0.458	21.4, 23.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.216	0.646	-1.48, 1.05	0.739
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.150	0.426	-0.686, 0.985	0.726
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.470	0.628	-0.761, 1.70	0.456
	Pseudo R square	0.002
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.6	0.558	23.5, 25.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.04	0.787	-0.505, 2.58	0.189
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.133	0.532	-1.18, 0.909	0.802
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.680	0.783	-0.855, 2.22	0.387
	Pseudo R square	0.013
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.5	0.685	18.2, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.35	0.966	-0.544, 3.24	0.164
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.889	0.626	-0.338, 2.12	0.158
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.911	0.922	-0.896, 2.72	0.325
	Pseudo R square	0.022
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.365	9.90, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.216	0.515	-0.794, 1.23	0.675
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.356	0.307	-0.245, 0.958	0.247
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.112	0.452	-0.775, 0.999	0.805
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.0	0.578	13.8, 16.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.473	0.816	-1.13, 2.07	0.562
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.810	0.541	-0.249, 1.87	0.136
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.177	0.797	-1.38, 1.74	0.824
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.5	0.669	20.2, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.492	0.944	-1.36, 2.34	0.603
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.998	0.586	-0.152, 2.15	0.091
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.039	0.865	-1.66, 1.73	0.964
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.0	0.436	15.2, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	0.615	-0.150, 2.26	0.088
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.756	0.449	-0.124, 1.64	0.095
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.816	0.661	-0.479, 2.11	0.219
	Pseudo R square	0.036
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.278	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.738	0.392	-0.030, 1.51	0.061
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.196	0.279	-0.743, 0.351	0.483
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.531	0.411	-0.274, 1.34	0.198
	Pseudo R square	0.027
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.306	16.2, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.335	0.432	-0.511, 1.18	0.439
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.282	0.307	-0.319, 0.883	0.359
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.534	0.451	-0.351, 1.42	0.239
	Pseudo R square	0.014
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.315	11.7, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.668	0.445	-0.204, 1.54	0.135
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.235	0.292	-0.338, 0.808	0.423
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.539	0.431	-0.306, 1.38	0.213
	Pseudo R square	0.023
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.573	28.0, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	0.808	-0.581, 2.59	0.216
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.539	0.515	-0.471, 1.55	0.297
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.02	0.760	-0.470, 2.51	0.182
	Pseudo R square	0.021
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.9	0.896	25.2, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.683	1.263	-3.16, 1.79	0.589
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.287	0.787	-1.25, 1.83	0.716
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.73	1.160	-6.00, -1.45	0.002
	Pseudo R square	0.025
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.483	12.8, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.14	0.681	-0.192, 2.48	0.095
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.558	0.413	-0.251, 1.37	0.179
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.462	0.609	-0.732, 1.66	0.449
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.395	14.6, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.938	0.557	-0.153, 2.03	0.093
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.648	0.366	-0.069, 1.37	0.079
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.234	0.540	-0.824, 1.29	0.665
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.838	27.5, 30.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.08	1.182	-0.236, 4.40	0.080
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.20	0.722	-0.214, 2.62	0.099
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.692	1.065	-1.40, 2.78	0.517
	Pseudo R square	0.024
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.149	12.4, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.068	0.210	-0.344, 0.481	0.746
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.048	0.197	-0.433, 0.338	0.809
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.029	0.288	-0.536, 0.594	0.920
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.336	13.8, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.710	0.474	-0.220, 1.64	0.136
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.677	0.382	-0.073, 1.43	0.079
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.639	0.562	-1.74, 0.463	0.258
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.411	12.4, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.306	0.579	-0.829, 1.44	0.598
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.719	0.432	-0.128, 1.57	0.099
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.124	0.636	-1.12, 1.37	0.845
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq	(Intercept)	27.7	0.673	26.4, 29.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.02	0.949	-0.844, 2.88	0.285
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.40	0.737	-0.048, 2.84	0.060
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.495	1.083	-2.62, 1.63	0.648
	Pseudo R square	0.010
empower	(Intercept)	18.9	0.433	18.0, 19.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.672	0.610	-0.525, 1.87	0.272
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.05	0.411	0.246, 1.86	0.012
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.394	0.605	-1.58, 0.792	0.516
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.248	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.022	0.350	-0.664, 0.709	0.949
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.430	0.291	-0.141, 1.00	0.142
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.406	0.428	-0.432, 1.24	0.344
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.298	11.3, 12.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.255	0.420	-1.08, 0.568	0.544
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.550	0.352	-1.24, 0.141	0.121
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.373	0.518	-1.39, 0.642	0.473
	Pseudo R square	0.017
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.2	0.354	9.51, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.168	0.500	-0.811, 1.15	0.736
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.361	0.315	-0.979, 0.256	0.254
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.674	0.465	-1.59, 0.236	0.149
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.1	0.357	9.36, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.250	0.504	-1.24, 0.738	0.621
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.540	0.328	-1.18, 0.104	0.103
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.165	0.484	-1.11, 0.784	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.49	0.355	7.79, 9.19
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.253	0.501	-0.729, 1.23	0.614
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.378	0.336	-1.04, 0.281	0.263
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.531	0.495	-1.50, 0.440	0.286
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss	(Intercept)	28.8	1.002	26.8, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.169	1.414	-2.60, 2.94	0.905
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.26	0.832	-2.89, 0.371	0.133
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.30	1.228	-3.70, 1.11	0.293
	Pseudo R square	0.008
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(324) = 26.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.79e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(324) = -2.87e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -3.94e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44], t(324) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.62], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.49, 18.60], t(324) = 63.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.52], t(324) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.33], t(324) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.72], t(324) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(324) = 55.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.86], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.60], t(324) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.12, 2.97], t(324) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.06], t(324) = 57.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.51], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.08], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(324) = 53.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.85], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.73], t(324) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.53])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.47, 13.58], t(324) = 45.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.10], t(324) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.93], t(324) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.24], t(324) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.47], t(324) = 42.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.23], t(324) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.48], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.29, 1.82], t(324) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.12, 0.76])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.53, 32.04], t(324) = 33.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(324) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.15], t(324) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.61], t(324) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.07])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(324) = 48.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.05], t(324) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.98], t(324) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.70], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.36])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(324) = 44.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(324) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.91], t(324) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.22], t(324) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.20, 20.88], t(324) = 28.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.24], t(324) = 1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.12], t(324) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.72], t(324) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(324) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(324) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.96], t(324) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.00], t(324) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.84, 16.11], t(324) = 25.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.07], t(324) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.87], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.74], t(324) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.24, 22.86], t(324) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.34], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.15], t(324) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.73], t(324) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 5.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.25])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(324) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(324) = 1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.64], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.11], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.65, 13.74], t(324) = 47.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.51], t(324) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.35], t(324) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.34], t(324) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(324) = 54.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(324) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.88], t(324) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(324) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.45])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.99], t(324) = 39.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.81], t(324) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.38], t(324) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(324) = 50.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.59], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.55], t(324) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.51], t(324) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.16, 28.67], t(324) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.79], t(324) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.83], t(324) = 0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.73, 95% CI [-6.00, -1.45], t(324) = -3.21, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.15])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(324) = 28.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.37], t(324) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.66], t(324) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(324) = 39.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.03], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.37], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.29], t(324) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.51, 30.79], t(324) = 34.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.40], t(324) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.62], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.78], t(324) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.94], t(324) = 84.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(324) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.59], t(324) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.39])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.77, 15.08], t(324) = 42.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.64], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.46], t(324) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.13])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(324) = 32.24, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(324) = 0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.37], t(324) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(324) = 41.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.88], t(324) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.84], t(324) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-6.85e-03, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.62, 1.63], t(324) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.04, 19.74], t(324) = 43.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.87], t(324) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.25, 1.86], t(324) = 2.56, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.06, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.79], t(324) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.83], t(324) = 57.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(324) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.00], t(324) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.24], t(324) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.26, 12.42], t(324) = 39.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.57], t(324) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.14], t(324) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.64], t(324) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(324) = 28.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(324) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.26], t(324) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.24], t(324) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.76], t(324) = 28.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.74], t(324) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.10], t(324) = -1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.78], t(324) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.79, 9.19], t(324) = 23.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.23], t(324) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.28], t(324) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.44], t(324) = -1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.79, 30.72], t(324) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.94], t(324) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.37], t(324) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.11], t(324) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.11])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,053.498	1,064.895	-523.749	1,047.498
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,055.534	1,078.329	-521.767	1,043.534	3.963	3	0.265
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,590.648	1,602.045	-792.324	1,584.648
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,592.979	1,615.774	-790.490	1,580.979	3.669	3	0.299
ras_confidence	null	3	1,992.249	2,003.646	-993.124	1,986.249
ras_confidence	random	6	1,979.650	2,002.444	-983.825	1,967.650	18.599	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,362.699	1,374.096	-678.350	1,356.699
ras_willingness	random	6	1,363.018	1,385.813	-675.509	1,351.018	5.681	3	0.128
ras_goal	null	3	1,657.975	1,669.372	-825.988	1,651.975
ras_goal	random	6	1,652.518	1,675.312	-820.259	1,640.518	11.457	3	0.009
ras_reliance	null	3	1,575.461	1,586.858	-784.730	1,569.461
ras_reliance	random	6	1,570.012	1,592.806	-779.006	1,558.012	11.449	3	0.010
ras_domination	null	3	1,482.441	1,493.839	-738.221	1,476.441
ras_domination	random	6	1,475.986	1,498.780	-731.993	1,463.986	12.455	3	0.006
symptom	null	3	2,298.340	2,309.738	-1,146.170	2,292.340
symptom	random	6	2,289.691	2,312.485	-1,138.845	2,277.691	14.650	3	0.002
slof_work	null	3	1,875.909	1,887.306	-934.954	1,869.909
slof_work	random	6	1,879.936	1,902.731	-933.968	1,867.936	1.973	3	0.578
slof_relationship	null	3	2,012.758	2,024.155	-1,003.379	2,006.758
slof_relationship	random	6	2,015.122	2,037.917	-1,001.561	2,003.122	3.636	3	0.304
satisfaction	null	3	2,147.272	2,158.670	-1,070.636	2,141.272
satisfaction	random	6	2,141.531	2,164.325	-1,064.765	2,129.531	11.741	3	0.008
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,706.408	1,717.806	-850.204	1,700.408
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,708.844	1,731.639	-848.422	1,696.844	3.564	3	0.313
mhc_social	null	3	2,034.137	2,045.534	-1,014.069	2,028.137
mhc_social	random	6	2,034.736	2,057.531	-1,011.368	2,022.736	5.401	3	0.145
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,117.344	2,128.741	-1,055.672	2,111.344
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,117.579	2,140.374	-1,052.790	2,105.579	5.764	3	0.124
resilisnce	null	3	1,879.417	1,890.815	-936.709	1,873.417
resilisnce	random	6	1,867.880	1,890.674	-927.940	1,855.880	17.538	3	0.001
social_provision	null	3	1,567.294	1,578.691	-780.647	1,561.294
social_provision	random	6	1,565.889	1,588.683	-776.944	1,553.889	7.405	3	0.060
els_value_living	null	3	1,631.090	1,642.487	-812.545	1,625.090
els_value_living	random	6	1,628.909	1,651.703	-808.454	1,616.909	8.181	3	0.042
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,637.036	1,648.433	-815.518	1,631.036
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,632.955	1,655.750	-810.478	1,620.955	10.081	3	0.018
els	null	3	2,025.899	2,037.296	-1,009.950	2,019.899
els	random	6	2,020.539	2,043.334	-1,004.270	2,008.539	11.360	3	0.010
social_connect	null	3	2,321.964	2,333.361	-1,157.982	2,315.964
social_connect	random	6	2,310.285	2,333.079	-1,149.142	2,298.285	17.679	3	0.001
shs_agency	null	3	1,901.214	1,912.611	-947.607	1,895.214
shs_agency	random	6	1,896.775	1,919.570	-942.388	1,884.775	10.438	3	0.015
shs_pathway	null	3	1,786.445	1,797.842	-890.223	1,780.445
shs_pathway	random	6	1,781.156	1,803.950	-884.578	1,769.156	11.289	3	0.010
shs	null	3	2,268.779	2,280.176	-1,131.389	2,262.779
shs	random	6	2,262.596	2,285.391	-1,125.298	2,250.596	12.183	3	0.007
esteem	null	3	1,200.367	1,211.764	-597.183	1,194.367
esteem	random	6	1,206.126	1,228.920	-597.063	1,194.126	0.241	3	0.971
mlq_search	null	3	1,714.691	1,726.088	-854.345	1,708.691
mlq_search	random	6	1,716.262	1,739.057	-852.131	1,704.262	4.428	3	0.219
mlq_presence	null	3	1,833.614	1,845.011	-913.807	1,827.614
mlq_presence	random	6	1,833.315	1,856.109	-910.657	1,821.315	6.300	3	0.098
mlq	null	3	2,166.622	2,178.020	-1,080.311	2,160.622
mlq	random	6	2,166.945	2,189.740	-1,077.473	2,154.945	5.677	3	0.128
empower	null	3	1,849.907	1,861.304	-921.953	1,843.907
empower	random	6	1,846.562	1,869.356	-917.281	1,834.562	9.345	3	0.025
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,525.216	1,536.613	-759.608	1,519.216
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,521.863	1,544.658	-754.932	1,509.863	9.353	3	0.025
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,646.672	1,658.069	-820.336	1,640.672
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,643.614	1,666.408	-815.807	1,631.614	9.058	3	0.029
sss_affective	null	3	1,705.459	1,716.857	-849.730	1,699.459
sss_affective	random	6	1,701.031	1,723.826	-844.516	1,689.031	10.428	3	0.015
sss_behavior	null	3	1,714.353	1,725.750	-854.177	1,708.353
sss_behavior	random	6	1,713.418	1,736.213	-850.709	1,701.418	6.935	3	0.074
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,717.146	1,728.544	-855.573	1,711.146
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,715.579	1,738.373	-851.789	1,703.579	7.568	3	0.056
sss	null	3	2,376.772	2,388.169	-1,185.386	2,370.772
sss	random	6	2,372.535	2,395.330	-1,180.268	2,360.535	10.237	3	0.017

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	106	3.13 ± 1.22		108	3.13 ± 1.22		0.998	0.001
recovery_stage_a	2nd	63	3.26 ± 1.18	-0.138	53	3.43 ± 1.17	-0.321	0.434	-0.182
recovery_stage_b	1st	106	18.05 ± 2.91		108	17.79 ± 2.92		0.520	0.143
recovery_stage_b	2nd	63	17.77 ± 2.68	0.152	53	18.35 ± 2.62	-0.312	0.244	-0.321
ras_confidence	1st	106	29.57 ± 5.50		108	29.95 ± 5.52		0.606	-0.137
ras_confidence	2nd	63	30.20 ± 4.87	-0.221	53	32.13 ± 4.70	-0.763	0.031	-0.679
ras_willingness	1st	106	11.67 ± 2.07		108	11.63 ± 2.08		0.879	0.035
ras_willingness	2nd	63	11.74 ± 1.89	-0.055	53	12.16 ± 1.85	-0.433	0.224	-0.343
ras_goal	1st	106	17.19 ± 3.28		108	17.52 ± 3.30		0.461	-0.183
ras_goal	2nd	63	17.42 ± 2.95	-0.127	53	18.57 ± 2.86	-0.578	0.034	-0.634
ras_reliance	1st	106	13.03 ± 2.92		108	13.34 ± 2.93		0.431	-0.200
ras_reliance	2nd	63	13.42 ± 2.61	-0.251	53	14.19 ± 2.53	-0.540	0.108	-0.490
ras_domination	1st	106	10.01 ± 2.41		108	9.60 ± 2.41		0.211	0.265
ras_domination	2nd	63	9.97 ± 2.24	0.025	53	10.61 ± 2.20	-0.651	0.121	-0.412
symptom	1st	106	30.28 ± 9.23		108	30.18 ± 9.27		0.935	0.025
symptom	2nd	63	29.04 ± 7.93	0.305	53	27.48 ± 7.58	0.661	0.283	0.380
slof_work	1st	106	22.30 ± 4.72		108	22.09 ± 4.74		0.739	0.088
slof_work	2nd	63	22.45 ± 4.18	-0.061	53	22.71 ± 4.04	-0.252	0.740	-0.103
slof_relationship	1st	106	24.64 ± 5.75		108	25.68 ± 5.77		0.189	-0.337
slof_relationship	2nd	63	24.51 ± 5.12	0.043	53	26.23 ± 4.96	-0.178	0.068	-0.559
satisfaction	1st	106	19.54 ± 7.05		108	20.89 ± 7.08		0.164	-0.374
satisfaction	2nd	63	20.43 ± 6.23	-0.246	53	22.69 ± 6.01	-0.499	0.048	-0.626
mhc_emotional	1st	106	10.61 ± 3.76		108	10.83 ± 3.78		0.675	-0.123
mhc_emotional	2nd	63	10.97 ± 3.27	-0.202	53	11.30 ± 3.13	-0.266	0.581	-0.187
mhc_social	1st	106	14.97 ± 5.95		108	15.44 ± 5.98		0.562	-0.152
mhc_social	2nd	63	15.78 ± 5.29	-0.259	53	16.43 ± 5.11	-0.316	0.502	-0.208
mhc_psychological	1st	106	21.55 ± 6.89		108	22.04 ± 6.92		0.603	-0.146
mhc_psychological	2nd	63	22.54 ± 6.03	-0.296	53	23.08 ± 5.80	-0.307	0.630	-0.157
resilisnce	1st	106	16.01 ± 4.49		108	17.06 ± 4.50		0.088	-0.404
resilisnce	2nd	63	16.76 ± 4.07	-0.289	53	18.64 ± 3.97	-0.602	0.013	-0.717
social_provision	1st	106	13.20 ± 2.86		108	13.94 ± 2.87		0.061	-0.456
social_provision	2nd	63	13.00 ± 2.58	0.121	53	14.27 ± 2.51	-0.207	0.008	-0.784
els_value_living	1st	106	16.80 ± 3.15		108	17.14 ± 3.16		0.439	-0.188
els_value_living	2nd	63	17.08 ± 2.84	-0.159	53	17.95 ± 2.76	-0.459	0.097	-0.488
els_life_fulfill	1st	106	12.37 ± 3.25		108	13.04 ± 3.26		0.135	-0.396
els_life_fulfill	2nd	63	12.60 ± 2.88	-0.139	53	13.81 ± 2.78	-0.458	0.023	-0.715
els	1st	106	29.17 ± 5.90		108	30.17 ± 5.92		0.216	-0.338
els	2nd	63	29.71 ± 5.19	-0.182	53	31.73 ± 5.01	-0.525	0.034	-0.681
social_connect	1st	106	26.92 ± 9.22		108	26.23 ± 9.26		0.589	0.151
social_connect	2nd	63	27.20 ± 8.08	-0.063	53	22.79 ± 7.77	0.760	0.003	0.974
shs_agency	1st	106	13.74 ± 4.97		108	14.88 ± 4.99		0.095	-0.482
shs_agency	2nd	63	14.29 ± 4.33	-0.235	53	15.90 ± 4.16	-0.430	0.043	-0.676
shs_pathway	1st	106	15.42 ± 4.06		108	16.35 ± 4.08		0.093	-0.444
shs_pathway	2nd	63	16.06 ± 3.60	-0.307	53	17.24 ± 3.48	-0.417	0.076	-0.554
shs	1st	106	29.15 ± 8.63		108	31.23 ± 8.67		0.080	-0.501
shs	2nd	63	30.35 ± 7.53	-0.289	53	33.13 ± 7.24	-0.456	0.044	-0.668
esteem	1st	106	12.65 ± 1.54		108	12.72 ± 1.54		0.746	-0.058
esteem	2nd	63	12.60 ± 1.49	0.041	53	12.70 ± 1.47	0.016	0.725	-0.083
mlq_search	1st	106	14.42 ± 3.46		108	15.13 ± 3.47		0.136	-0.316
mlq_search	2nd	63	15.10 ± 3.22	-0.302	53	15.17 ± 3.16	-0.017	0.905	-0.032
mlq_presence	1st	106	13.25 ± 4.23		108	13.55 ± 4.25		0.598	-0.122
mlq_presence	2nd	63	13.96 ± 3.86	-0.286	53	14.40 ± 3.76	-0.335	0.544	-0.171
mlq	1st	106	27.67 ± 6.93		108	28.69 ± 6.96		0.285	-0.236
mlq	2nd	63	29.07 ± 6.39	-0.324	53	29.59 ± 6.25	-0.209	0.658	-0.121
empower	1st	106	18.89 ± 4.46		108	19.56 ± 4.47		0.272	-0.283
empower	2nd	63	19.94 ± 3.97	-0.442	53	20.22 ± 3.84	-0.277	0.703	-0.117
ismi_resistance	1st	106	14.34 ± 2.56		108	14.36 ± 2.57		0.949	-0.013
ismi_resistance	2nd	63	14.77 ± 2.40	-0.251	53	15.20 ± 2.36	-0.488	0.334	-0.250
ismi_discrimation	1st	106	11.84 ± 3.07		108	11.58 ± 3.08		0.544	0.123
ismi_discrimation	2nd	63	11.29 ± 2.88	0.265	53	10.66 ± 2.84	0.444	0.240	0.302
sss_affective	1st	106	10.21 ± 3.65		108	10.38 ± 3.66		0.736	-0.093
sss_affective	2nd	63	9.85 ± 3.20	0.199	53	9.34 ± 3.09	0.571	0.388	0.279
sss_behavior	1st	106	10.06 ± 3.68		108	9.81 ± 3.69		0.621	0.132
sss_behavior	2nd	63	9.52 ± 3.25	0.285	53	9.10 ± 3.14	0.372	0.486	0.219
sss_cognitive	1st	106	8.49 ± 3.66		108	8.74 ± 3.67		0.614	-0.130
sss_cognitive	2nd	63	8.11 ± 3.26	0.194	53	7.84 ± 3.15	0.468	0.641	0.143
sss	1st	106	28.75 ± 10.32		108	28.92 ± 10.36		0.905	-0.035
sss	2nd	63	27.49 ± 8.94	0.264	53	26.37 ± 8.57	0.535	0.489	0.236

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(292.91) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)

2st

t(324.85) = 0.78, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.60)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(261.59) = -0.64, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.53)

2st

t(325.94) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)

ras_confidence

1st

t(245.44) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)

2st

t(321.88) = 2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.18 to 3.69)

ras_willingness

1st

t(257.88) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.52)

2st

t(325.69) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.11)

ras_goal

1st

t(250.95) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)

2st

t(324.33) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.22)

ras_reliance

1st

t(248.66) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)

2st

t(323.50) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.71)

ras_domination

1st

t(267.56) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.24)

2st

t(325.96) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)

symptom

1st

t(235.44) = -0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.39)

2st

t(311.72) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-4.39 to 1.29)

slof_work

1st

t(246.01) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(322.21) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.76)

slof_relationship

1st

t(248.01) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.59)

2st

t(323.22) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.56)

satisfaction

1st

t(244.57) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.25)

2st

t(321.34) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 4.50)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(238.62) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)

2st

t(316.03) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.50)

mhc_social

1st

t(246.40) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.08)

2st

t(322.43) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.55)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(241.44) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)

2st

t(318.93) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.70)

resilisnce

1st

t(255.53) = 1.72, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.26)

2st

t(325.38) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.34)

social_provision

1st

t(252.86) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.51)

2st

t(324.85) = 2.68, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.20)

els_value_living

1st

t(252.67) = 0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.18)

2st

t(324.81) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(245.71) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.54)

2st

t(322.04) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.24)

els

1st

t(243.37) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.60)

2st

t(320.50) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.89)

social_connect

1st

t(241.62) = -0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.81)

2st

t(319.09) = -2.99, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-7.31 to -1.51)

shs_agency

1st

t(239.83) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.48)

2st

t(317.37) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.16)

shs_pathway

1st

t(245.78) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.03)

2st

t(322.08) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.47)

shs

1st

t(240.33) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.41)

2st

t(317.88) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.07 to 5.48)

esteem

1st

t(291.53) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)

2st

t(324.88) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.64)

mlq_search

1st

t(267.50) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.64)

2st

t(325.96) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st

t(257.89) = 0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.45)

2st

t(325.69) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.83)

mlq

1st

t(262.48) = 1.07, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.89)

2st

t(325.97) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.84)

empower

1st

t(247.69) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.87)

2st

t(323.07) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.71)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(271.80) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.71)

2st

t(325.81) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(273.22) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.57)

2st

t(325.74) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.42)

sss_affective

1st

t(242.54) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.15)

2st

t(319.86) = -0.86, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.65)

sss_behavior

1st

t(245.05) = -0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)

2st

t(321.65) = -0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.76)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(247.42) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)

2st

t(322.95) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.89)

sss

1st

t(237.95) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.95)

2st

t(315.22) = -0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.33 to 2.08)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(161.48) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(141.81) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(132.90) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (1.12 to 3.23)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(139.71) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.99)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(135.88) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(134.63) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.43)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(145.25) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.58)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(127.59) = -3.48, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.23 to -1.17)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(133.20) = 1.34, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(134.28) = 0.95, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.69)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(132.43) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.46 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(129.26) = 1.41, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(133.41) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.15)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(130.76) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.30)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(138.40) = 3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(136.93) = 1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.93)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(136.82) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.47)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(133.04) = 2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.40)

els

1st vs 2st

t(131.79) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.66)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(130.85) = -4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-5.13 to -1.75)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(129.90) = 2.28, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.91)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(133.08) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.67)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(130.17) = 2.42, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.45)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(160.50) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.40)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(145.22) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(139.72) = 1.80, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.77)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(142.31) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.47)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(134.11) = 1.48, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(147.77) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.46)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(148.62) = -2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.67 to -0.17)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(131.34) = -3.03, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.36)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(132.69) = -1.98, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(133.96) = -2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.63 to -0.19)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(128.91) = -2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.35 to -0.77)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(150.96) = 0.82, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.44)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(136.01) = -0.89, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.34)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(129.13) = 1.27, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.61)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(134.41) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.49)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(131.45) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.85)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(130.48) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(138.65) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(124.99) = -1.75, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to 0.17)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(129.37) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.99)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(130.21) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.92)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(128.77) = 1.42, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(126.30) = 1.16, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(129.53) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(127.47) = 1.70, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.16)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(133.39) = 1.68, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(132.26) = -0.70, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(132.18) = 0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(129.25) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.81)

els

1st vs 2st

t(128.27) = 1.05, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.56)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(127.54) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.85)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(126.80) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.38)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(129.28) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.37)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(127.01) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.63)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(150.23) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(138.63) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.43)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(134.41) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(136.41) = 1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(130.08) = 2.55, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.86)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(140.58) = 1.47, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(141.23) = -1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.15)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(127.92) = -1.14, p = 0.509, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(128.97) = -1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.11)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(129.96) = -1.12, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(126.02) = -1.51, p = 0.266, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.39)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance